Looking for Opinions on Certain sections of the Barrier Requirements (section 305) of the ISPSC

[Saugie53]

Hey everyone I'm just looking to get some other people's perspective on a few specific sections of the ISPSC. Currently our state has adopted the 2018 International codes with state-specific amendments but these sections I will be discussing are not amended and I believe were not changed at least between the 2015 version and the 2018 version. This will be specific to residential decks that are built to access above ground pools where the pool wall itself was acting as the required barrier prior to the deck being constructed. I have always done my permit plan reviews with notes regarding Section 305.3 (which is the gate section) essentially adding notes to the plans that I find people often forget regarding the gate being required to be self-closing and self-latching, a minimum of 48 in above the surface, and in regards to section 305.3.3 I always mention that if the latch on the gate is located less than 54" off the grade below the gate then the release mechanism shall be located on the pool side of the gate, no less than 3" below the top and there can be no openings in the gate and barrier greater than ½" anywhere within 18" of the release mechanism. I do this because I find a lot of the times when I go do my inspections people seem to not know this or even that the gate has to be 48" and they try to make it the same size as the residential railings which are usually 36". Either when noting this on the plans and telling them to look at the notes I often go to do a final inspection only to find they built a 48-inch gate but have roughly 3 to 4 inches between guards for the gate and the latch is usually accessible through that opening. In fact I just did a final inspection 15 minutes ago where this exact case happened as you can see in the pictures at the following link ( it wouldn't let me insert them for some reason)

Matt Souza has shared 2 photos with you!

www.flickr.com

When I took a look at the code again just so I could quote the actual section for the contractor when I called him I started reading Section 305.5 which is the section for an on-ground residential pool structure being used as the barrier. Looking at requirement number 3 under section 305.5 it states " ladders or steps used as a means of access to the pool are capable of being secured, locked or removed to prevent access except where the ladder or steps are surrounded by a barrier that meets the requirements of section 305". Reading that section made me start to think and I want to get the opinion of a few of you as well.

Does anybody think when the code says "ladders or step used as a means of access to the pool are capable of being secured, locked or removed..." that a stairway for a deck being constructed to access a residential above ground pool could be looked at as the steps being used as a means of access to the pool mentioned by that section? If it can be then according to that section they would be allowed to possibly just put a lockable latch like I showed in the attached picture and they would meet the intent of the code even if it is not located on the pool side of the barrier and is located less than 54" above grade. Could it be looked at that a lockable gate for a deck Stairway to an above ground pool be looked at just like a lockable ladder that is used to access an above ground pool?

I am going to be very interested to hear what some other people think on this matter and appreciate any input anybody wants to give.

 

[ICE]

The gate needs to be at the bottom of the stairs and the correct height at the gate with the surrounding construction at the correct height,etc.....




The gate swings in the wrong direction per California code. As far as the ISPSC reference to stairs that can be secured, locked or removed.... My take on that is that these are steps that provide access to a pool.

 

[Saugie53]

I agree in this case the gate definitely has to be at the bottom of the steps but it doesn't always have to, they could have constructed a landing at the top of the stairs with 48" tall guards on the sides of the landing and then placed the gate at the end of the landing opening out away from the pool and either had the latch on the pool side with no openings larger than ½" with 18" of the latch or had a latch that raised up above 54" and they would have been fine. The point of my post though was more just trying to get people's opinions on whether or not stairs on a residential deck being used to access a pool could be looked at as the steps they mention under number 3 in section 305.5. If so then just having a lockable latch or a lock at the top from the stairs on the gate would suffice to meet that requirement.

 

[ICE]

I can agree that the semantics support the premise that the stairs are what is pointed out in the code. I can't see me buying off on the arrangement no matter what the code is saying....but that's just me and I don't have a problem bucking the system. And I am retired until next Monday.

This is what I had to work with:
Where an above-ground swimming pool structure is used as a barrier or where the barrier is mounted on top of the swimming pool structure, the ladder or steps shall be secured to prevent access or they shall be surrounded by a barrier.

The rest of the barrier requirements still apply.

 

[steveray]

I think the intent would be lightweight easily removable steps....Nothing that requires a screwgun or sledgehammer....

 

[Saugie53]

I can't see me buying off on the arrangement no matter what the code is saying...

I agree 100% And in the case I presented with the pictures, like I had mentioned I was looking in the code so I could quote word for word what the section said about Gates to the contractor when I called him to tell him his final inspection failed. I just happened to see that while I was looking through and thought about it for a second and was just interested to see what other people might think about it. I have already called this contractor to tell him to put the gate at the bottom of the stairs and his best bet would be getting a lot that the release raises up 54 in off grade so he doesn't have to worry about then filling in his gate so it doesn't have any openings larger than ½".

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Agree. Home owners seem to screw this up all the time no matter what I write on the plans. I always suggest buying a pool latch then this all goes away.

I am not sure if a landing is required between the gate and the top or the bottom of the stairs since it is not a means of egress for a dwelling.

 

[Saugie53]

I am not sure if a landing is required between the gate and the top or the bottom of the stairs since it is not a means of egress for a dwelling.

It may not be required but I was just stating in one of my previous posts that if they had put a landing at the top of the stairs it would then be required to be 36 in in the direction of travel so then if you put the gate at the end of The Landing and 48 inch cards on either side of the landing the gate would be far enough away from the handrail that it would be out of the 36 in zone for anything less been 48 in being too close to the barrier. That would allow you to put the gate essentially at the top off the deck instead of having it down at the bottom and at that point you also wouldn't have to worry about the first couple of risers and handrail being less than 48 in on the sides of the gate

 

[Saugie53]

so then if you put the gate at the end of The Landing and 48 inch cards on either side of the landing

I really hate the tall to text sometimes... that was supposed to say if you put the gate at the end of the landing and 48" guards on either side of the landing...

 

[steveray]

I am going to resurrect this because we recently started using an amended ISPSC...The devil in the details is that 305.5 talks about the pool walls themselves being the barrier, not an adjacent deck:

305.5Onground residential pool structure as a barrier.​

An onground residential pool wall structure or a barrier mounted on top of an onground residential pool wall structure shall serve as a barrier where all of the following conditions are present:

1. 1.Where only the pool wall serves as the barrier, the bottom of the wall is on grade, the top of the wall is not less than 48 inches (1219 mm) above grade for the entire perimeter of the pool, the wall complies with the requirements of Section 305.2 and the pool manufacturer allows the wall to serve as a barrier.
2. 2.Where a barrier is mounted on top of the pool wall, the top of the barrier is not less than 48 inches (1219 mm) above grade for the entire perimeter of the pool, and the wall and the barrier on top of the wall comply with the requirements of Section 305.2.
3. 3.Ladders or steps used as means of access to the pool are capable of being secured, locked or removed to prevent access except where the ladder or steps are surrounded by a barrier that meets the requirements of Section 305.

In this picture would you/ do you allow folding ladders serving the deck serving the pool to comply with the barrier requirements?


The anti-regulation guy in me says it doesn't matter where the crappy protection is (pool walls or deck) once it is allowed....The part of me that hates to see kids drown says I am going to fight this as long as possible....What say you? FYI CT has historically been "self closing self latching" automatic ladders just like the rest of the barrier pedestrian gates...

 

[Saugie53]

In this picture would you/ do you allow folding ladders serving the deck serving the pool to comply with the barrier requirements?

In RI we do not amend the ladder section to be self-closing/self-latching or automatic so I would have to say yes I would have to allow it IF the bottom of that that ladder is at least 48" from grade when folded or it can be folded up and locked to prevent access (as stated in # 3. of 305.5) as long as it also meets # 4. Of 305.5 "Openings created by the securing, locking or removal of ladders and steps do not allow the passage of a 4-inch diameter sphere." It would be no different than a pool wall acting as the barrier and the common use of "slide lock" above-ground pool ladders that everyone seems to use now adays with them. I mean the section even allows a non-lockable ladder to be used as long as it's "removed to prevent access". How many people do you think are going to take the time to remove the ladder everytime they are done using the pool once we complete the Final Inspection and walk away? I don't care for that last one but if it says it in the code I legally can't turn around and say "I'm not going to allow you to use that code section because I don't like it".

As far as your amended section in CT, you can definitely deny that one as it's not a self-closing/self-latching automatic ladder because your code allows you to.

 

[Saugie53]

The devil in the details is that 305.5 talks about the pool walls themselves being the barrier, not an adjacent deck

#3 of 305.5 also says "Ladders or steps used as a means of access to the pool" which means ANY ladders or steps that can be used to access the pool. That ladder in that picture going to the deck would be a ladder used to access the pool.

 

[steveray]

#3 of 305.5 also says "Ladders or steps used as a means of access to the pool" which means ANY ladders or steps that can be used to access the pool. That ladder in that picture going to the deck would be a ladder used to access the pool.

But the charging language of 305.5 is that the pool structure is the barrier and not the deck....

 

[ICE]

1. 3.Ladders or steps used as means of access to the pool are capable of being secured, locked or removed to prevent access except where the ladder or steps are surrounded by a barrier that meets the requirements of Section 305.

In this picture would you/ do you allow folding ladders serving the deck serving the pool to comply with the barrier requirements?

Relying on the user to do something is not a viable solution. This sets people up to live a lifetime of regret... "If only I had removed the stairs, Becky would still be with us."

LA County has this regarding above ground swimming pools:

Above-ground swimming pool structure.
Where an above-ground swimming pool structure is used as a barrier or where the barrier is mounted on top of the swimming pool structure, the ladder or steps shall be secured to prevent access, or they shall be surrounded by a barrier. When the barrier is mounted on top of the above-ground pool structure, the maximum vertical clearance between the top of the pool structure and the bottom of the barrier shall not allow the passage of a sphere 4 inches in diameter.

"Shall be secured" leaves a big hole to fall into. What is secured? Is removed secured?

The stairs look like the most dangerous part of this arrangement.

 

[steveray]

Relying on the user to do something is not a viable solution. This sets people up to live a lifetime of regret... "If only I had removed the stairs, Becky would still be with us."

LA County has this regarding above ground swimming pools:

Above-ground swimming pool structure.
Where an above-ground swimming pool structure is used as a barrier or where the barrier is mounted on top of the swimming pool structure, the ladder or steps shall be secured to prevent access, or they shall be surrounded by a barrier. When the barrier is mounted on top of the above-ground pool structure, the maximum vertical clearance between the top of the pool structure and the bottom of the barrier shall not allow the passage of a sphere 4 inches in diameter.

"Shall be secured" leaves a big hole to fall into. What is secured? Is removed secured?

The stairs look like the most dangerous part of this arrangement.

View attachment 11419

Agreed...CT took a big step back here IMO, but it puts us in line with the national code..FWTW

 

[Saugie53]

But the charging language of 305.5 is that the pool structure is the barrier and not the deck....

No the charging language of 305.5 is that the "pool wall structure or a barrier on top of an onground residential pool wall structure shall serve as  a barrier where all of the following conditions are present". You would need to meet all of those conditions to be able to use the structure wall as a barrier and that is still not saying it is the complete barrier it says "a" barrier so it could be a portion of the barrier while still neeing other components to complete the remainder of the barrier.

You are also forgetting the charging language of the entire Barrier Requirements section 305.1 General. "The provisions of this section shall apply to the design of barriers for restricting entry into  areas having pools and spas."

 

[Saugie53]

Relying on the user to do something is not a viable solution. This sets people up to live a lifetime of regret... "If only I had removed the stairs, Becky would still be with us."

I agree 100% with this. I only wish Rhode Island would amend this section to something similar as well. Unfortunately, as I mentioned before I'm legally not allowed to tell someone they can't do something that the adopted state code allows. All I can do is cover myself and when I do the plan review note in a redline on the approved plans that the ladder is required to be removed when not in use and then again when I go out for my final inspection have it in writing in the inspection report.

 

[steveray]

No the charging language of 305.5 is that the "pool wall structure or a barrier on top of an onground residential pool wall structure shall serve as  a barrier where all of the following conditions are present". You would need to meet all of those conditions to be able to use the structure wall as a barrier and that is still not saying it is the complete barrier it says "a" barrier so it could be a portion of the barrier while still neeing other components to complete the remainder of the barrier.

You are also forgetting the charging language of the entire Barrier Requirements section 305.1 General. "The provisions of this section shall apply to the design of barriers for restricting entry into  areas having pools and spas."

Not really....if 305.5 is limited to pool wall barriers and access then the deck (not in scope of 305.5) would revert to the general 305.1 and maybe more so 305.2 and 305.3

 

[Saugie53]

Not really....if 305.5 is limited to pool wall barriers and access then the deck (not in scope of 305.5) would revert to the general 305.1 and maybe more so 305.2 and 305.3

I get why you're thinking of it that way but 305.5 his not limited specifically to pool walls being the barrier because it also allows barriers on top of pool walls. 305.5 is saying that a pool wall can be used as a barrier only if you meet all of the conditions and one of the conditions says any steps or ladders used to access the pool must be secured or removed. If those are the only steps that get up on the deck and the deck has direct access to the pool then that means those steps are used as a means to access the pool. Not only that but to what you said above one of the other conditions is that the pool wall must comply with 305.2 so it sends you to 305.2 anyway.

You also have to remember that 305.5 is a subsection of 305 and 305.1 says that all of section 305 (which includes 305.5) is specifically for the design of barriers for restricting entry into  areas having pools and spas.